2012: Too soon for a Christie presidential run?

Three camps on this one:

1. Absolutely too soon! He’s barely accomplished anything as governor yet.

2. Not too soon! He’s as qualified as Obama was, isn’t he?

3. Probably too soon — but those YouTube clips are awesome.

I’m in camp one. It’s not because he hasn’t had a chance to do much yet (although that’s true enough) but because, as much as it pains me to say it, I don’t think America’s ready to have “the talk” with Chris Christie yet. We’re getting there — just today, the Senate killed the new jobs bill over deficit concerns thanks to 12 Democrats voting no — but as bad as things are, I think it’ll take a lot more pain before entitlement reform is seriously on the table in a bipartisan way. Look what it took to bring about a serious reform impetus in Greece; meanwhile, in France, they’re ready for political war over upping the retirement age from 60 to 62. If you’re Christie, what’s the lure of winning the presidency in two years only to end up locked in a stalemate with a reluctant Congress over reforming social security? Granted, he’s up against an entrenched legislature in Jersey too, but freezing teachers’ pay for a year is one thing and getting the country to sign on to revamping Medicare is quite another. Plus, why challenge a Democratic incumbent when you can wait until 2016 (assuming Obama’s reelected) and face an open field? If he runs next year, not only does he have to deal with O but he’ll find himself battling for votes within the same niche as Mitch Daniels, i.e. the little-known dark horse whose top priority to the exclusion of virtually all others is solving America’s fiscal crisis. It’s a thankless task.

Exit question: How am I wrong? Make the case.

Update: “None. Zero interest. Zero. None. Close the door. No chance. No way. Under no circumstances.”